No abstract

Background. Calorie labeling at the point-of-purchase in chain restaurants has been shown to reduce energy intake. Objective. To investigate the impact of point-of-purchase calorie information at one rural middle school. Methods. With a community-based participatory research framework a mixed method approach was used to evaluate the impact of point-of-purchase calorie information. Students in grades 6–8, dining at the school cafeteria January and February 2010, participated for 17 school days each month; in January a menu was offered in the usual manner without calorie labels; the same menu was prepared in February with the addition of calorie labels at point-of-purchase. Gross calories served per student were measured each day allowing for matched comparison by menu. In March/April of 2010, 32 students who ate in the cafeteria 3 or more times per week were interviewed regarding their views on menu labeling. Results. Calorie consumption decreased by an average of 47 calories/day; fat intake reduced by 2.1 grams/day. Five main themes were consistent throughout the interviews. Conclusion. Point-of-purchase calorie labels can play a role in reducing the number of calories consumed by middle school age children at the lunch. The majority of students interviewed found the calorie labels helped them choose healthier food.

Within this Medicaid population, ED utilization was determined not only by patient characteristics but by community characteristics. Better understanding of system-level factors affecting ED use can enable communities to improve their health care delivery systems-augmenting access to care and reducing reliance on EDs.

Purpose Community engagement (CE) and community-engaged research (CEnR) are increasingly recognized as critical elements in research translation. Process models to develop CEnR partnerships in rural and underserved communities are needed. Method Academic partners transformed four established Community Health Improvement Partnerships (CHIPs) into Community Health Improvement and Research Partnerships (CHIRPs). The intervention consisted of three elements: an academic-community kick-off/orientation meeting, delivery of eight research training modules to CHIRP members, and local community-based participatory research (CBPR) pilot studies addressing childhood obesity. We conducted a mixed methods analysis of pre/post surveys, interviews, session evaluations, observational field notes, and attendance logs to evaluate intervention effectiveness and acceptability. Results Forty-nine community members participated; most (78.7%) attended five or more research training sessions. Session quality and usefulness was high. Community members reported significant increases in their confidence for participating in all phases of research (e.g., formulating research questions, selecting research methods, writing manuscripts). All CHIRP groups successfully conducted CBPR pilot studies. Conclusions The CHIRP process builds on existing infrastructure in academic and community settings to foster CEnR. Brief research training and pilot studies around community-identified health needs can enhance individual and organizational capacity to address health disparities in rural and underserved communities.

Background: Intervention toolkits are common products of grant-funded research in public health and primary care settings. Toolkits are designed to address the knowledge translation gap by speeding implementation and dissemination of research into practice. However, few studies describe characteristics of effective intervention toolkits and their implementation. Therefore, we conducted this study to explore what clinic and community-based users want in intervention toolkits and to identify the factors that support application in practice. Methods: In this qualitative descriptive study we conducted focus groups and interviews with a purposive sample of community health coalition members, public health experts, and primary care professionals between November 2010 and January 2012. The transdisciplinary research team used thematic analysis to identify themes and a crosscase comparative analysis to explore variation by participant role and toolkit experience.